Springfield daily republic. [volume] (Springfield, O. [Ohio]) 1887-1888, 1887-12-05
WHY Such SLOW PROGREsSs''

LIE tHrtStotn fTSSS. OF Slncinndti. u
monthly paper Of very wide circulation ant
of great influence. and il is paper worth,
of its name. II is radical and fearless, ant
We note, with much personal interest. that
in an article entitled IS above, it has takel
in hand our amiable journalistic neighbor
Brother Thompson, Of the Ne,r Era, fo
substantially calling the editor Of the RE
PUBLIC liar. We had not noticed tina
our courteous fellow Christian t?l reformel
had been guilty Of this sort of conduct, ant
had been going on with our affairs, cheer
fully and happily, IS if nothing dreadful
had occurred In the animal or insect king
dom. Still. We find it pleasant to be per
sonally defended and vindicated by such 9
paper rs the Press. This paper tthe Press
in the article We allude TO, shows
why the Prohibition Party" in Ohio makes
such slow progress. In the election just
passed" il says. ''it polIed some thirty thou
sand votes, whereas it ought to have pOlled
and would have polled, il the prohibition.
lists had voted that ticket. at least 500, o0C
votes" The Press had formerly accounted
for the lack OF growth of the party by the
fact that il included in its platform SO much
concerning which temperance men were not
agreed, and as a matter of course, they
were not furnished bond Of union and
action" 1t now gives another reason
namely-'Ihe reckless and denunciatory
character Of third-party periodicals: they
are not content with denouncing saloon
keepers. but they frequently denouncs bet
ter men. and men that have done more 10
further the cause of prohibition and Sab
bath observance than themselves-aye, men
that have advocated and voted prohibition
for many years-because. forsooth. they
dared to differ with them about the propri-
ely of amending the Dow Law" The
Press, by way of illustration, then quotes
the resolution adopted At the Presbyterian
synod at Piqua, as follows:
That we encourage the efforts. by petition
and otherwise, that will be made to have
the next legislature of our state so amend
the existing temperance Legislation as 10 ex-
c.ude its discrimination against the Sabbath,
and TO extend its local option feature to
and counties. and also to secure
the submission TO vote of the people, of
prohibitory amendment.
Concerning the adoption of this, and the
synod's refusal TO amend it, Mr.. Thomp-
son, prohibitionist, in his Netc Era says:
Tie action Of this synod will make more
will shake the faith of more men
in the sincerity and integrity Of the Chris
tian church. and do more to block the
wheels of the car OF Zion, than q thousand
Bob Ingersolls could do in their lifetime.
The remainder of the Press's editorial
We copy, entire. as follows:
II this had been written by bloated
'aloon keeper. We conid easily understand
I. We wollanct expect such . man te
<~or the extension OF the area where sa-
oons should be closed, nor would we ex-
,ect him to seek the removal of the exemp-
ion of the Sabbath law in favor of saloons,
md least of all would We expect him to |
,etition for prohihitOry amendment, but |
We were not prepared to see such anathe-
mas against these principles from a pro
sssed prohibitionist
In the same paper. we find the following /
xtract from our nsighbor, the Journal and |
Messenger: Now, the selling Of liquor
vas as legal rs the selling Of dry goods, BE-
ore the passage of the Dow Law" And
n this the Neio Era comments as follows:
Il it possible that the editor Of the Jour.
al and Messenger was ignorant of the
act that prior to the passage of the Pond
Law. the sale Of liquor, to be
rank on the premises, was illegal. and
nat the la& making it illegal was repealed
y the Pond-Scott-Dow Law" And be-
aase Mr.. Nichols, OF the Springfield Re
UBLIc. indorsed the statement OF the
0ar1ldl and Messenger. the Netc Era adds
But Mr.. Nichols could not have been ig-
GRANT of the fact. and therefore his reitera,
on of the statement was . deliberate false
ood." Now. what are the facts? The
Nv of 1854 did not render illegal the sale
liquor of any kind-saloOn keepers could
III anything they chose. provided 1t was
Of drank on the premises; and by section
Of the law, wine, ale. beer and cider
,uld be sold to be drank on the premises:
} that the law was not worth the paper
was written on AS prohibtory measure |
ideed, the decisions Of our courts have
been that the following clause
the state constitution. mo license t.
1
.r-after be granted in this state, but tn.
neral assembly may by law pro
de against evils arising therefrom," pro
ded for the Continuance Of the traffic
hject to such restraint as the Legislature
.ght impose, until Judge Johnston took
e ground, in maintaining the constitution
lty Of the Scott law, that the legislatur,
ight restrain, even TO the extent of prohi-
ton. but until thus by law restrained, it.
lie was perfectly legal-we do not SAY
!ht. but legal-and the Journal ant
essengsr asserted the exact truth W,
g sorry TO have to refer 10 such things
t we are persuaded that it is just sucf I
ckless writing and speaking. on the par
few prohibitionists. that has kept tn, s
riy from polling much larger vote; and
trust our neighbor, the Nc,r Era. will | !
the future. be more careful of its state,
'nts. unless its purpose is to keep III.
rty as small as possible.